Delhi in CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora

15 Taxmann.com 307High Court2011#3340 most cited

What is Delhi in CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora authority for?

Deduction under Section 54F is available to an assessee for an investment made jointly with their spouse, even if the assessee only contributes a portion of the investment. The benefit of the deduction is not restricted to the assessee's share of the investment.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora · Section 54F · capital gains exemption · joint investment · spouse · full deduction · investment sourced by assessee · liberal construction

Sections most often in play

Section 54FSection 143(3)Section 54Section 142(1)Section 45Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 90aunexplained jewellerysection 24(b)under-reporting of incomesection 54fsection 80cforeign tax creditroyalty incomesection 54bwithholding taxdisallowance of interest expendituresection 54

Judgments citing Delhi in CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora

Anil Hanumant Choudhari, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 8(3) Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 406/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B.R. BarveFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 251Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.406/PUN/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Anil Hanumant Choudhari, ITO, Ward-8(3), Pune. Rucha Building, Lane-4, Jaimala Nagar, Vs. Old Sangvi- 411027. PAN : AEVPC8789D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri B.R. Barve Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 30-09-2025 Date of 25-11-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by th…

Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore, Mahalkshmipuram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Intl, Taxation 1(2) Bangalore, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54Section 54(2)Section 80T

…IT(IT)ANo.258/Bang/2025 HanchipuraChannaiah Nandakishore, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI,VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2nd Stage and Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2nd Stage, 14th Main, West of Chord ITO Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 PAN NO :BLRPN0428A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent by : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date of…

Vithiya Murali, Nagapattinam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kumbakonam

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3333/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.3333/Chny/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vithiya Murali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.51, Subramaniyampuram, Ward-1, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam Kumbakonam. Tamil Nadu-609 001. [Pan: Aohpv4251M]

For Appellant: Mr.Abhishek Murali, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यागयक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री एस.आर.रघुनाथा ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ITA Nos.3333/Chny/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vithiya Murali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.51, Subramaniyampuram, Ward-1, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam Kumbakonam. Tamil Nadu-609 001. [PAN: AOHPV4251M] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.Abhishek Murali, C.A. प…

Smt. Tejal Kaushal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 25(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3303/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Reepal Tralshawala
Section 143(2)Section 23Section 250Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM Smt. Tejal Kaushal Shah Income Tax Officer Ward, B-1102, Water Ford Apartment, Juhu 25(1)(5) Lane Barfiwala Marg, Andheri (W), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Mumbai – 400058. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051. PAN/GIR No. AARPS8702N (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Reepal Tralshawala : Shri. Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR) Respondent by Date of Hearing : 21.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challengin…

Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Jay Bharat Mehta, Mumbai

ITA 1085/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry &For Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 54FSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai – 400020, Maharashtra. …………. Appellant Vs Jay Bharat Mehta 83B and C Sheth Govindrao Smruti BL, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai – 400018. Maharashtra. [PAN:AFCPM1890H] …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant /Department : Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram For the Respondent /Assessee : Shri J. D. Mistry & Ms. Arati Vissanji Date Conclusion of hearing : 16.10.2024 Pronouncement of order : 13.01.2025 O…

Mr Colathur N. Ram, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 34(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of what we have observed hereinabove

ITA 1464/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Colathur N. Ram Vs. ACIT 35(1) 2nd Floor, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Waheeda bldg, Bandra East, 19 Nargis Dutt Road, Mumbai-400051 Pali Hill, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. PAN/GIR No. AAIPR4661A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Prakash D. Jotwani Revenue by Shri. H.M. Bhatt (SR.DR.) Date of Hearing 18/06/2024 Date of Pronouncement 17/09/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 13.03…

Income Ax Officer, Ward-6(1), Pune vs. Sambhaji Maruti Katkar, Pune

ITA 666/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…1 ITA.No.645, 666 & CO.No.19/PUN./2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.645, 666 & CO.No.19/PUN./2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Mr. Sambhaji Maruti The Income Tax Officer, Katkar, S.No.26/6, Ward – 6 (1), PMT Bldg., Singhad Road, Wadgaon Shankar Sheth Road, vs (Bk), PUNE - 411 051 Swargate, PUNE – 411 037. Maharashtra.PAN AEZPK8714Q Maharashtra. (Appellant/Cross Objector) (Respondent/Appellant) For Assessee : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani For Revenue : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR Date of…

Mr. Sambhaji Maruti Katkar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Pune

ITA 645/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…1 ITA.No.645, 666 & CO.No.19/PUN./2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.645, 666 & CO.No.19/PUN./2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Mr. Sambhaji Maruti The Income Tax Officer, Katkar, S.No.26/6, Ward – 6 (1), PMT Bldg., Singhad Road, Wadgaon Shankar Sheth Road, vs (Bk), PUNE - 411 051 Swargate, PUNE – 411 037. Maharashtra.PAN AEZPK8714Q Maharashtra. (Appellant/Cross Objector) (Respondent/Appellant) For Assessee : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani For Revenue : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR Date of…

Anil Bhardwaj, Zambia vs. DCIT-ACIT-Int-Tax Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1250/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1250/Del/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj Dcit/Acit 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office Of Acit-Dcit Int- Near Rhodes Park School, Tax, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, Ny (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb2321F (Appellant)

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Kumar, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 54Section 54F

…1 Anil Bhardwaj Zambia IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE Dr. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1250/DEL/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj DCIT/ACIT 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office of ACIT-DCIT INT- Near Rhodes Park School, TAX, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, NY (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ANLPB2321F (APPELLANT) Assessee by : Sh. Shailesh Kumar, CA Department Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT DR by: Date of Hearing 07.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement 29.08.2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.…

Anjappan Rangasmy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 321/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…d the same should be liberally construed in favor of the assessee. Once the investment has been sourced by the assessee, the benefit thereof would be available to the assessee. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 Taxmann.com 307 supports our view. In this case, the investment was made by the assessee jointly with his wife. The Ld. AO restricted the deduction to the extent of 50%. However, Tribunal allowed full deduction and Hon’ble High Court upheld the action of Tribunal. We are of the considered opinion that similar ratio would apply here. Similar is the decisio…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 320/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…d the same should be liberally construed in favor of the assessee. Once the investment has been sourced by the assessee, the benefit thereof would be available to the assessee. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 Taxmann.com 307 supports our view. In this case, the investment was made by the assessee jointly with his wife. The Ld. AO restricted the deduction to the extent of 50%. However, Tribunal allowed full deduction and Hon’ble High Court upheld the action of Tribunal. We are of the considered opinion that similar ratio would apply here. Similar is the decisio…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Centrl Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 319/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…d the same should be liberally construed in favor of the assessee. Once the investment has been sourced by the assessee, the benefit thereof would be available to the assessee. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 Taxmann.com 307 supports our view. In this case, the investment was made by the assessee jointly with his wife. The Ld. AO restricted the deduction to the extent of 50%. However, Tribunal allowed full deduction and Hon’ble High Court upheld the action of Tribunal. We are of the considered opinion that similar ratio would apply here. Similar is the decisio…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 318/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…d the same should be liberally construed in favor of the assessee. Once the investment has been sourced by the assessee, the benefit thereof would be available to the assessee. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 Taxmann.com 307 supports our view. In this case, the investment was made by the assessee jointly with his wife. The Ld. AO restricted the deduction to the extent of 50%. However, Tribunal allowed full deduction and Hon’ble High Court upheld the action of Tribunal. We are of the considered opinion that similar ratio would apply here. Similar is the decisio…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. Dcitcentral Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 317/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…d the same should be liberally construed in favor of the assessee. Once the investment has been sourced by the assessee, the benefit thereof would be available to the assessee. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 Taxmann.com 307 supports our view. In this case, the investment was made by the assessee jointly with his wife. The Ld. AO restricted the deduction to the extent of 50%. However, Tribunal allowed full deduction and Hon’ble High Court upheld the action of Tribunal. We are of the considered opinion that similar ratio would apply here. Similar is the decisio…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 316/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…d the same should be liberally construed in favor of the assessee. Once the investment has been sourced by the assessee, the benefit thereof would be available to the assessee. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 Taxmann.com 307 supports our view. In this case, the investment was made by the assessee jointly with his wife. The Ld. AO restricted the deduction to the extent of 50%. However, Tribunal allowed full deduction and Hon’ble High Court upheld the action of Tribunal. We are of the considered opinion that similar ratio would apply here. Similar is the decisio…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 307/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…d the same should be liberally construed in favor of the assessee. Once the investment has been sourced by the assessee, the benefit thereof would be available to the assessee. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 Taxmann.com 307 supports our view. In this case, the investment was made by the assessee jointly with his wife. The Ld. AO restricted the deduction to the extent of 50%. However, Tribunal allowed full deduction and Hon’ble High Court upheld the action of Tribunal. We are of the considered opinion that similar ratio would apply here. Similar is the decisio…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 306/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…d the same should be liberally construed in favor of the assessee. Once the investment has been sourced by the assessee, the benefit thereof would be available to the assessee. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 Taxmann.com 307 supports our view. In this case, the investment was made by the assessee jointly with his wife. The Ld. AO restricted the deduction to the extent of 50%. However, Tribunal allowed full deduction and Hon’ble High Court upheld the action of Tribunal. We are of the considered opinion that similar ratio would apply here. Similar is the decisio…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Ciorcle-1(3_, Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 305/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…d the same should be liberally construed in favor of the assessee. Once the investment has been sourced by the assessee, the benefit thereof would be available to the assessee. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 Taxmann.com 307 supports our view. In this case, the investment was made by the assessee jointly with his wife. The Ld. AO restricted the deduction to the extent of 50%. However, Tribunal allowed full deduction and Hon’ble High Court upheld the action of Tribunal. We are of the considered opinion that similar ratio would apply here. Similar is the decisio…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1 (3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 304/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…d the same should be liberally construed in favor of the assessee. Once the investment has been sourced by the assessee, the benefit thereof would be available to the assessee. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 Taxmann.com 307 supports our view. In this case, the investment was made by the assessee jointly with his wife. The Ld. AO restricted the deduction to the extent of 50%. However, Tribunal allowed full deduction and Hon’ble High Court upheld the action of Tribunal. We are of the considered opinion that similar ratio would apply here. Similar is the decisio…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1 (3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 303/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…d the same should be liberally construed in favor of the assessee. Once the investment has been sourced by the assessee, the benefit thereof would be available to the assessee. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 Taxmann.com 307 supports our view. In this case, the investment was made by the assessee jointly with his wife. The Ld. AO restricted the deduction to the extent of 50%. However, Tribunal allowed full deduction and Hon’ble High Court upheld the action of Tribunal. We are of the considered opinion that similar ratio would apply here. Similar is the decisio…